DUNCAN AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. SUBBANNA B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Identical issues are involved in all these three writ petitions. W.P. No. 3785 of 1981 is a petition for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Rajahmundry made in Case No. 19 of 1981, dated 21/05/1981. W.P. Nos. 1676 and 1677 of 1981 are for issue of writ calling for records in P.G. Appeal Nos. 11 and 15 of 1980 on the file of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Eluru and quash dated 23/09/1980 and 28/09/1980 therein.

(2.) The facts stated in support of the Writ Petition No. 3785 of 1981 may be considered and the facts and allegations in the other writ petitions are similar. The petitioner is a company established at Agarpura, 24 Parganas in the State of West Bengal and has branches at Guntur and Bikkavole in Andhra Pradesh. The 1st respondent and others, who were daily-rated seasonal workmen in Biccavole factory, which was closed down in 1974, presented an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming gratuity. Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 confers right on the employee to claim gratuity in the event on rendering continuous service for not less than five years on the conditions enumerated in S. 4. Section 4 does not enable the employee to claim gratuity in the event of closing down the unit. When the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act formerly accorded the gratuity to the 1st respondent, the petitioner was obliged to file appeal and in appeal, the orders were passed remanding the matter to the preliminary authority for fresh disposal. The petitioner establishments has branches in more than one State i.e., in West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the appropriate Government in respect of the petitioner is the Central Government and the authority for considering the issue is Central Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act appointed by the Central Government, but not the authority constituted by the State Government.

(3.) The Controlling Authority, 2nd respondent herein, stated in the counter-affidavit that the contention that the employee is not eligible for payment of gratuity in the event of closure of the unit is untenable as the requirement defined in S. 2(q) takes in the situation of closure of the unit. With regard to the want of jurisdiction of the State Government, the petitioner did not plead or place the basic jurisdictional factors before the primary authority and as such, this primary objection was rejected. In the absence of any facts in support of the contention regarding jurisdiction, it is not possible to decide the issue.